IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.
Shaik Mahaboob Subhani - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Petition No.8024 of 2022
Decided On : 20-10-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498-A, 313, 342, 307, 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Section 3, 4 – Special Marriage Act, 1954 – Section 27(1)(d) – Criminal Petition – Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty – Punishment for wrongful confinement – Attempt to murder – Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest – Criminal Petition, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by petitioner/Accused No.1 in Crime of Disha UPS, Nellore, registered for offences punishable under Sections 498-A 313, 342, 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Held, It is clear that in case if there is no danger that accused would flee from justice and if there is no chance of accused repeating same offence, Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically stated in those circumstances, bail can be granted in favour of petitioner – In view of aforesaid circumstances, Court is inclined to order as follows – In event of arrest of petitioner/Accused, he shall be enlarged on bail on he executing personal bond for a sum of with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer – After release, petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by investigating officer as and when required, and he shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case – Criminal Petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner/Accused No.1 in Crime No.64 of 2022 of Disha UPS, Nellore, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A 313, 342, 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the de facto complainant is working as Woman Police Constable at Santhapet Police Station, Nellore and A1/the petitioner herein who is her husband is working as Sub-Inspector of Police in the same police station at relevant point of time. The petitioner/accused deceived the de facto complainant with his sweet words under the pretext of love and enjoyed her sexually. When the de facto complainant asked him to marry her, he refused. On reporting the matter to the higher-ups by the de facto complainant, the accused, to circumvent from being punished for the offence under Section 376 IPC, married her on 26.8.2020 in a temple. Both the de facto complainant and A1 while living together in a rented house in Podalakur Road Center, Nellore, she conceived in the month of February, 2021. The petitioner then forced her to go for abortion but she refused. Thereby on 04.3.2021, the petitioner beat her and also forcibly had sex with her, with a view to get abortion. On 16.3.20221, it is alleged that the petitioner quarelled with her as she did not go for abortion and gave punch in her stomach with his right hand, thereby she suffered stomach pain and started bleeding. On 17.3.2021, she was examined by the doctor and got scanned and it revealed that she got missed abortion and doctors advised her to take rest. Again she was forced to go for abortion on 18.3.2021, but she refused. It is alleged that on 21.3.2021 again the petitioner raised dispute and threatened that by any means he will see that her pregnancy is terminated and on the same night he again fisted in her stomach and also beat her several times. She fell down and felt uneasy in her stomach and bleeding started. The petitioner threatened her that if she reveals that he beat her, he would foist false case against her father and sister and would send them to jail. On 22.3.2021, she underwent Scanning at Ramachandra Reddy Hospital. In the scanning, it was found that she had missed abortion. The fetus was not having heartbeat. She was informed by the doctors that she cannot conceive and gave some tablets advising her to admit in the hospital. She joined in the hospital on 23.3.2021. On 15.7.2022, the mother-in-law of the de facto complainant came to her house. On 11.8.2022 Jarida and Shabeena the sisters of A1 also came to her house and from 13.8.2022 they all started saying to give divorce as there is an offer of Rs.50,00,000/- towards dowry for the petitioner/A1. They used to demand her to bring Rs.20,00,000/- so as to allow her to continue as wife of A1. In fact, at the time of marriage, she gave Rs.3,00,000/- to A1. A1 also took Rs.1,00,000/- when his father was suffering from Covid- 19. A1 never spent a rupee for her after the marriage and on the other hand she used to lead marital life from 30.7.2022 with her own salary. On 02.9.2022, A1 by raising quarrel, caught hold of tuft and tried to hit her head against a wall, but she escaped by keeping her hands against the wall. On 09.9.2022 the petitioner/A1 gave a fist blow with a view to kill her. A1 and her mother-in-law locked her in the house and then she gave ring to officers and dialed 100. A1 said to have stated on 12.9.2022 that he would not lead conjugal life with her and he is deserting her and that she may go for any case and that he is going on sick leave, hence no police can do anything. Her husband and her mother-in-law left the village on 13.9.2022 and they are not responding to her phone call. Hence the report.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 contended that even accepting the entire allegations against the petitioner, no offence alleged is made out against him. The reason for
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors., (2011) 1 SCC 694, on 2 December
An accused who has not been declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. is entitled to anticipatory bail, even if they were shown as absconding in the charge sheet.
Anticipatory bail is not a right and should only be granted in exceptional circumstances, particularly in serious allegations where custodial interrogation is necessary to protect the investigation.
Anticipatory bail may be granted in matrimonial disputes where custodial interrogation is unnecessary.
Criminal Law - Seeking to grant anticipatory bail - Section 438 Cr.P.C. protects the right to life and personal liberty of such persons by providing them with a remedy against frivolous detention. In....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.